DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Preliminary Amendment dated January 14, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
For purpose of examination, the term “digital twin” is interpreted as:
“a virtual representation of a physical entity. Once created, the digital twin can be used to represent the physical entity in a digital representation of a real world system. The digital twin is created such that it is identical in form and behavior to the corresponding physical entity.”
“The digital twin simulates the behavior of the physical entity”
“A digital twin of a network comprises a logical architecture wherein one or more data pipelines comprising network data are fed into one or more environmental models which may or may not be different from each other. The output of the environmental model or models may be combined with further data and fed through an environmental model, possibly distinct from all the previous environmental models.
The successive environmental models may be referred to as layers of the digital 20 twin. The environmental model or models may be parametrized with metadata acquired or learned from the network. This may be repeated any number of times. The final output stream is the digital twin of the network. The digital twin of the network may be considered as a close simulation of the actual network. Depending on the complexity of the layers of environmental models comprising the digital twin and the interaction between the layers, the digital twin may be considered to be a neural network.”
For purpose of examination, the term “transfer” is interpreted as:
“The transfer of the digital twin of the first network to the second network means that the digital twin of the first network becomes the digital twin of the second network”.
The transfer is interpreted as the context of the digital twin of the first network is transferred to the digital twin of the second network. At that moment in time, both digital twins are equal to each other in context
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-11, 13, 16 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 16 and 32, the phrase "so that " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The claim limitations fail to positively recite the performance of transferring the digital twin of the first network and at best, they suggest a future use of the comparison.
Claim 2 supports the interpretation that transferring of the digital twin of the first network is not required in the independent claims. The existence of the requirement to transfer of the digital twin in claim 2 is evidence that Applicant did not intend for the independent claims to include a transfer of the digital twin. Additionally, the limitations of claim 2 do not remedy the ambiguity of the “such as” phrase because it remains unclear in claim 2 whether the transfer is performed on the basis of the claimed comparison.
Claims 2-11 and 13 fail to cure the deficiencies of claim 1 and rejected under similar rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8, 11, 13, 16 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract ides without significantly more.
Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method.
Step 2A
The following limitations are directed to abstract ideas:
obtaining for each router of the N routers of the first network:
a location of the router;
mobility data of wireless devices attached to the router; and
data traffic information of devices attached to the router;
[This limitation is directed to data gathering ]
computing a digital fingerprint of the first network on the basis of the router location, mobility data and data traffic information for all N routers;
[This limitation is directed to a mental process that can be performed by the human mind with pencil and paper]
comparing (103) the digital fingerprint of the first network with a digital fingerprint of the second network
[This limitation is directed to a mental judgement.]
so that a transfer of the digital twin of the first network to the second network may take place on the basis of the comparison.
[This phrase is an intended use and not given patentable weight] ]
The recited claim contains the following additional limitations:
the first network comprises N routers and the second network comprises M routers
The networking components are generic computing devices that used to tie the abstract idea to a computing environment.
Upon considering the additional limitations, individually or in combination, they fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The Networking components are used to generally link the abstract idea to a computing environment. The additional elements in combination do not recite an inventive concept. Claim 1 fails to recite significantly more than an abstract idea.
For at least the above reason, Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 16 and 32 are rejected under similar rationale.
The generic computing nodes of claim 16 are used merely to link the abstract idea to a computing environment and fail to add significantly more than an abstract.
The computer-readable medium of claim 32 is a generic computing component used to store the abstract idea. Storage on a generic component fails to recite significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 2 recites
transferring (108) the digital twin of the first network to the second network.
This limitation is directed to an extra-solution activity of data-gathering and fails to add significantly more than an abstract. The claims fail to perform a practical application of the abstract idea because the transfer of the digital twin is unrelated to the claimed evaluation.
Claim 3 recites
wherein transferring the digital twin of the first network to the second network comprises using transfer learning to transfer the first digital twin to the second network.
Claim 4 recites:
wherein transferring the digital twin of the first network to the second network comprises using domain adaptation to transfer the first digital twin to the second network.
Claim 5 recites:
wherein transferring the digital twin of the first network to the second network comprises using deep neural network transfer learning to transfer the first digital twin to the second network.
Claims 3-5 similarly recite the use of ML model at a high level of generality such that they amount to using generic ML models to perform an abstract idea. The claim limitations fail to describe how the each of the ML model will be used. The claims as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application.
Claim 6 recites:
wherein obtaining the digital fingerprint of the first network
comprises applying a lossless compression algorithm to the router location data, the mobility data, and the data traffic information obtained from each router of the N routers.
This claim limitation amounts to a mathematical calculation applied to the data. The claim as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 7 recites:
further comprising creating a digital fingerprint of the second network
[This limitation is directed to a mental process that can be performed by the human mind with pencil and paper]
and comparing each element of the digital fingerprint of the first network with each element of the digital fingerprint of the second network.
[This limitation is directed to a mental judgement.]
The claim as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 8 recites:
wherein comparing the digital fingerprint of the first network with the digital fingerprint of the second network comprises calculating a similarity measure as a function of the digital fingerprint of the first network and the digital fingerprint of the second network.
This limitation is directed to a mental judgement. The additional judgment recite within claim 8 fails to add significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 11 recites:
storing the digital fingerprint of the first network or the digital fingerprint of the second network in a database.
This limitation is directed to an insignificant extra-solution activity. The storage id claimed at a high-level merely to tie the abstract idea to a computing environment.
Claim 13 recites:
obtaining for each radio access node of the N radio access nodes of the first network, at least one of:
network slice information associated to each radio access node of the N radio access nodes;
quality of service information associated to each radio access node of the N radio access nodes; and
node energy measurements information associated to each radio access node of the N radio access nodes;
and
obtaining the digital fingerprint of the first network on the basis of the network slice information obtained information of all N radio access nodes.
This specificity of the data acquired during the “obtaining” limitation does not add significantly more to the recited abstract idea.
The recited claim contains the following additional limitations:
the first network is a cellular network
The networking components are used to generally link the abstract idea to a computing environment and fail to add significantly more.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 32 sets forth a “computer readable storage medium” without providing any explicit definition within the claim or specification. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable storage media (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is absent an explicit definition or is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2
Conclusion
Relevant Prior Art:
Yuan et al. U.S. Patent Application publication 2024/0160466- discloses a method for synchronizing deployment and status information from a physical network to a digital twin.
O’Sullivan et al. U.S. Patent Application publication 2023/0274050- discloses a fingerprint of a network’s structural hierarchy to identify a blueprint of parameters.
Roemerman et al. U.S. Patent Application publication 2020/0394351- discloses comparing a present digital twin to historical twins to determine present operational state and corrective measures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M COUSINS whose telephone number is (571)270-7746. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am -5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tonia Dollinger can be reached at (571) 272-4170. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JMC/Examiner, Art Unit 2459
/TONIA L DOLLINGER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2459
Prosecution Insights